>> gregg: hello, i'm gregg jarrett. >> heather: and i'm heather childers. the scene of a tense emotional dramatic as they present closing arguments in the murder trial of casey anthony. after 34 days of gripping testimony jurors will soon decide, did this young woman kill her own two-year-old daughter in cold blood or was caylee anthony's death a tragic accident. >> gregg: phil keating joins us with more. bring us up to speed. >> reporter: we're in an ununexpected recess as the judge deals with the attorneys, jeff ashton with the state's

prosecution time and jose baez, casey anthony's attorney. they have been going all trial long. clearly there is great animosity. they don't like each other very much. after we broke for this recess. jose baez was making a passionate argument to the jury, focusing on the duct tape that was on the gas can and the duct tape that matched the remains and try to pin it on george anthony. trying to raise reasonable doubt that casey had anything to do with dumping the bones, the body of her daughter in the woods, trying to pin that on george anthony. during this hypothetical argument, perhaps, jeff ashton, you can see him visibly laughing at the table right in the courtroom. this case hour and 15 minutes after we returned from lunch

which is when judge perry said. >> there will be no gestures, no facial expressions, no shaking of the head. no visible animation on the attorneys' face that could influence the jury and then you had jeffrey ashton. so they called the attorneys up for a bench conference. jury remains out of room. it turns out that was actually a pretty opportune break, this is the time of day when they do that. there is still about an hour left, i believe for the defense team to make their closing argument. the judge gave each side four hours for their closing argument. this morning begin with jeff ashton making a 77-minute long closing argument presentation. they get to rebutted after the defense makes it's argument. so theoretically we could be

going until 6:00 or 7:00 tonight if not later. >> gregg: stand by for just a moment. i want to bring back into the conversation, julie, a former prosecutor. it's quite interesting. it comes from alice and wonderland where alice falls into this fantasy world and both the is prosecutor, jeff ashton referred to this. i'm looking at it. its trip down a rabbit hole into a bizarre world where you have to believe the defense case, it's pure fantasy. then we hear jose baez talking about how the science on behalf of the prosecution is nothing but fantasy junk science. >> very interesting. first we'll start out generally. the problem in any case like this, in a courtroom you have two professors.

fancy listening to a lecture, they sound wonderful. they get up and talk to you, wow i agree with that. they leave. and the the professor says something contradictory. that is happening in any type of trial proceeding. baez has completely attacked the prosecution and attacked the science and attacked the tactics of the prosecution. he eventually is trying to establish doubt, doubt and doubt. >> gregg: did he cross the line -- and the judge was suggesting he did -- when he sustained the objections from the prosecution because it appeared as though, jose baez was attacking the motives of the prosecution team? >> listen, that is a tactic many would disagree with. some say it a different way. certainly judges give instructions in this case, instructions of not reacting, not having facial expressions, not attacking the actual integrity of the prosecutor at all or the prosecutor to attack

the defense. yes, you can argue the line was crossed. he is trying to save someone's life so he is going to live on edge. that is precisely what he is doing. >> gregg: we're going to play what happened inside the courtroom. very powerful closing arguments from the prosecution and for the defense. let's play jeff ashton the prosecutor. here it is. no real hard evidence, no dna, no fingerprints, nothing, but she is liar and flake. convict her on that and she lied. she didn't act the way she means too to but let's make her pay for her life. that is what the case about. an accident that snowballed out of control. it's out of control right now. >> gregg: wrong sound bite, he

is using the testimony of george anthony's alleged mistress to suggest that george confessed it was all an accidental drowning? >> absolutely. what he is doing is taking any piece of evidence he can in this case and using it to his advantage, attempting to show doubt. look, they have already admitted the defense has, there was a death here. it's not a who done it case, it's a case you would ultimately conclude whether premeditated or was it done by accident. if he establishes and the jury could believe that it was accidental, you have saved her life and you mitigate the charges. it's no-no longer murder one. >> gregg: we'll talk about why we're not in court right now. we have heard for a while from the prosecution, jeff ashton and we heard from jose baez and hear from the other defense attorney who is very experienced trial attorney and death penalty cases who was assigned co-counsel in

this case. they are going to split that and we'll hear in the last word before the jurors diberate will be from the prosecution, a rebuttal there. it seems as though, joey, the judge is maybe getting fed up with both sides, with baez crossing the line in his closing argument and the facial expressions and alleged laughter from the prosecutor. >> it's inappropriate. the prosecutor did object and that objection was sustained but you know you not allowed to make any type of expression whatever. why? because the jury is looking and evaluating the conduct of all parties. you don't want that sort of conduct to be outcome determinative. the jury needs to focus on the evidence. so i believe both parties are getting a scolding. baez for introducing that into his closing argument and certainly the prosecutor for,

perfect is accepting is he was laughing during that. that is what the judge is addressing now. you know he is not too happy with the conduct of the parties at this point. >> gregg: you don't have to prove motive in the case but earlier on the prosecutor appeared to do that. maybe we can cue up that tape by jeff ashton, how her responsibility was a lie basically, she wanted this fun, happy life. the birth of her daughter interfered with that life. it was very explicit about that. >> that was very compelling. we know it's not evidence. it's not evidence for the prosecutor to sum up. it's not evidence for the defense attorney to sum up. but what ashton did was be very compelling in the way he laid it out. laid out why it would be that casey wants her daughter gone. what would be the purpose for her having her remove her from the equation. i think especially when he tied in to the fact she is beginning

to talk now. this is age where she could dispose and expose the motr for lying and being deceptive. that i think was very effective. >> gregg: here is the remark by the prosecutor, motive didn't have to prove but he offered it nevertheless. >> when caylee was born, casey was saddled with expectation and responsibility. those expectations came not only from society but from her parents. the expectation that she would care for her daughter with the support of the parents and she would work hard and help support her daughter. her response to those new responsibilities as the evidence has shown in this case was a lie. >> he continued to say these are

lies by what he implied a self-absorbed mother who suddenly had an inconvenient daughter thrust upon her. >> significance of what i'm about to tell you is simply not that casey anthony lied, it's the pattern and the reason that she lies that is important in this case. what you'll see and what i'm going to tell you and what you've heard in this case is when casey is faced with a problem, her solution is to change her lie, to modify it. casey is very bright. you can't take any of that away from her, she is very smart and her lies are very detailed but what you find throughout this case is this persistent pattern. when casey wants to do, what casey wants to do, casey finds a

way. >> gregg: then he said, she killed her own daughter to solve that dilemma. what to do with the body? jeff ashton offered an explanation for that and involved a shovel. take a listen. >> and casey's car is seeing backed into the anthony home when no one is home. it's that day or the next day the evidence showed casey goes to the next door in any way and borrows a shovel. to borrow a shovel because she thought briefly about burying caylee in the backyard, just like they bury their pets. that was too much work for her, so she decided to throw her in the swamp. >> then, of course, the question why? the prosecutor then proceeded to answer that question.

>> chose to sacrifice her child to live the life that she wanted she took a child, she took a life and she put her in the trunk and forgot about it. after a couple of days, she couldn't forget anymore and she disposed the body in the swamp. these are the facts you have heard. these are the facts that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that casey anthony is guilty of murder in the first degree. that that murder is premeditated >> gregg: let's go back live to the courtroom in orlando, florida. the judge is speaking. we don't know whether the jurors are there but let's listen. >> both sides would like to take

the time to go look at it. i will ask them to pull it up and you can look at it. then i will proceed to do what i'm going to do. state ordered defense wants to have an opportunity to view the video clip. unfornately video sometime show it or show it the way it is.

i will ask miss levy and ask in session, find a place where they can go see it. this court will be at ease until the parties get a chance to look at it. >> gregg: well, this is very surprising. i don't think i've ever seen this. it appears as though both sides now want to look at the videotape of our pool camera provided by in session, true tv to see what the defense said and what the prosecutor may have mouthed or gestures. i think some of this may be in reference to jose baez using the "f" word in the context of what somebody had said which was evidence in the case. but joey, the judge wants to

literay look at the tape of what happened in the courtroom, as the defense attorney was speaking and second camera on the prosecution table. >> he has to do this. there is a lot riding here. you know the defense is making their record of appellate issues that would be there, any misconduct on the part of prosecution with respect to expressions or any of that. that would be part of the appellate record. this judge has the to take control and see what the parties are talking about, what mr. baez did observe what he said he did. just briefly going about covering this for 25, 30 years, the point of this trial nothing surprises me now. there has been break after break. the attorneys have been scolded with respect to conduct or misconduct here. they both crossed line. >> this judge has already said, mr. baez i'll deal with this

case after this is over. >> on contempt on more than one occasion. >> during normal closing you do your kleogs and leave it in the hands of the jury, you come back. for this to happen is highly unusual. >> gregg: it's unfortunate for mr. baez and obviously by implication his client baits he was reaching a crescendo, talking about the duct tape, probably the most valuable evidence the defense may have that tie that duct tape not to the accused but to the father of the defendant. >> absolutely. here is where he has to maintain the thrust when he comes back. when he comes back after, he has to pick up on that critical point because ultimately you got to keep your eye on the prize. if that prize is to create doubt to save your client, let's do it. >> gregg: we're going replay the

tape of what happened and they were asked to approach the bench take a look at this. >> we're not talking about fantasy forensics anymore. we're talking about cold, hard evidence, evidence that points to one person, one person only. had he can get up here and lie all you want and truth is the truth and depending on who is asking the questions, whether it's this laughing guy right here. >> objection. >> sustained. approach the bench. >> gregg: that was the moment. jurors were then told to please leave the room. there was a long discussion in judge's chambers. loved to have been a fly on the wall in those chambers. now, we can see with our own eyes what the prosecutor jeff ashton was doing. let's go back in the courtroom. because the judge is talking to

both lawyers. >> you will follow the law. i'm beginning to see that orders or anything else may not mean not anything to you. go look at it and i need to do whatever i need to do. >> i trust your judgment on whatever you saw and i don't need to see it. mr. mason, do you want to see it? do you want to see it? >> i do, your honor.

> i do. >> they'll let you know as soon as it's available. >> gregg: quite a dramatic moment inside the courtroom. one attorney didn't want to see. the other attorney wants to see the videotape at the very end during the closing argument. jose baez blaming all of this on the father of the accused, not his client the defendant and the prosecutor would appear have to be with a hand over his face mocking and laughing and so forth. the judge had warned him even

before it begin, don't make any gestures, facial or otherwise. let's go to robert shaw who is a veteran trial attorney. robert, is this all that important in the grand scheme of things? >> no, jose baez let jeff ashton get the best of him. he has to have a poker face. he can't allow him to emotion overtake him at table and speak wi some sort of gesture. but jose baez took the wind out of his own sails. he was at the crescendo of his closing statement. he was about to blame george anthony and instead of continuing with what was a decent argument for him was his evidence and boards in front of that jury, he let jeff ashton get the best of him. >> gregg: now he has interrupted himself, lost his momentum.

he maybe lost the jurors' attention. after all, this could be dealt with after closing arguments all the other alleged contempt court citations we already know are going to go dealt with after the trial. >> all jose baez needed to do when he was finished outside the presence of jury, ask the record reflect continued facial expressions curing his summations so the record would reflect it. he has the benefit of the videotape. it's not in question. under normal circumstances when we try cases, may the record reflect counsel is making a gesture. now, we have videotaped. it would not have been difficult. he could have handled it a better way. he is only hurting himself here.

>> heather: i found it interesting that it was the prosecutor that on that in the middle of all of this? >> the prosecutor objected to the defense attorneys comment pointing him out as the guy who is laughing over here, but the prosecutor was laughing. behavior in the courtroom is very important. judge perry runs a tight ship. ashton should know. that both of the lawyers went out of control and there is no love lost. as phil keating pointed out a little while ago. judge perry has a right to be angry. he is about to hold them in contempt. the summary contempt proceeding that happens right in front of him but he has to do it now. he can't say i'm going it at the end of trial. that would be a different type of contempt proceeding. i hope he is not going hold the lawyers in contempt. that is major thing. what i've done i've taken lawyers into chambers and i ripped them to shreds and that

enough to set the right tone or i threatened with contempt at the end of the case. holding a lawyer in contempt is a big step. you don't want to do that. it can affect their carr. >> so if he calls contempt right now, what does that do the case, what would happen next? >> it does nothing to the case. it's basically a contempt citation against the lawyers. he can have a summary procedure which like the gentleman who was using his middle finger creatively in the courtroom the other day, they are not entitled to counsel. show me good cause why i shouldn't hold you in contempt by showing displusher in the argument -- displeasure. give him an opportunity to say anything before the sentence is imposed and sentence him. the judge has very stringt rules for summary contempt proceeding that is scenario where the judge is the prosecutor, the jury and

judge all at one time. that is w if it's not done right now, the procedure changes for any other contempt that he brings later on. >> gregg: judge, it's good we have you as a judge because we're going to show a clip our viewers haven't seen of judge melvin perry chewing out the lawyers, let's listen. >> during this recess i took an opportunity to go and view the video of this segment that mr. baez was talking and mr. ashton's reactions and mr. baez is corresponding response. needless to say that response

behalf of mr. ashton and mr. baez violates this court's oath. if both sides would like to take the time to go look at it, i will ask them to pull it up and you can look at it. >> gregg: talk to us about they both violated. >> right now they are back. you might want to listen because a judge is giving them an opportunity. >> gregg: let's listen in. >> i wanted to make sure my expression was not seen by the jury. if i exceeded the court's order

apologize. nothing i said i did was seen by the jury. that is my observation of the tape. >> i have no other comment other than i would not request that mr. ashton be held in contempt. this case has been highly emotional for both sides. all i really request is that, serious nature of what is going on. i also apologize getting caught up in the moment and making those arguments but after three years of working with mr. ashton i do not wish that upon him.

i have my apology to the court. >> is there anything anybody else wants to say? >> no, sir. >> i will accept that for now, but as i told both sides if the happens again, the remedy will be exclusion of that attorney from further participation in these proceedings, as i told you at the bench, there are at least three attorneys on the stated side. i don't know whether mr. george is going to participate in closing arguments but it would be to either of them and

mr. mason and mr. medina and whoever else y'all have over this along wh other things that will be quite, quite unpleasant. enough is enough. i will instruct the jury in the morning because we still have these final charges to go over. i take responsility for that since should have brought you back on saturday afternoon to go over this charge conference. i took you you all at your own word and 30 minutes would be enough. anything else?

let's finish closing arguments. we will stay here to get these charges -- i don't think it will take long. they are just about done. all right. >> gregg: so if ty do it again the judge is going to exclude counsel from the trial. joey jackson, can you really harm and jeopardize the rights of the accused by the actions of their lawyer? >> i think that would be a tremendous mistake in the event it happens. at the same time, it has to have teeth and hold these lawyers accountable, they have not obeyed his orders. >> gregg: let's go back to the judge ferrar that practices in that jurisdiction.

translate what happened here. >> i agree with joey jackson. if the judge is angry enough if it happens again, i would go to contempt route than eliminating defense lawyer because he is ready to go for closing arguments. there would be less of a chance for reversal of appellate issues but i'm glad the judge didn't do that. that is monumental action to hold against a lawyer. i would have gone the route of ripping them and not holding them in contempt. i think that is the route he is going. >> judge ax, thank you so much. jose baez is about to resume. let's listen. >> only points to one person. there is some doubt here. there is in issues here. there are some things that just do not add up. there is also something that you

learn toward the end of the defense case and that is, the way in which the anthony family had buried their pets. it's odd, it's different. there is a pattern there that each member of the family testified to except george again had a little amnesia. george is the person who actually does the burying, who does all the work seems to forget that cindy and lee clearly remembers. why instead of rebuttal of impeaching cindy did we not dig up that backyard? why did george anthony never tell police about the way they buried their pets? three years go by and there is no mention of it.

there is a chance that to save his daughter's life. mr. ashton said why would someone use three pieces of duct tape. you recall mr. murdoch one was found six and a half feet away. you recall seeing it attached to the hair of caylee which would be the top portion near the top of the bag. there are any number of scenarios what could have happened in six months. there is significant movement of bone where the state clearly brought out one was found under four inches of muck, that can move but a piece of duct tape can't. i submit to you that is not reasonable. it's not also reasonable to accept the constant lies in

these incidents of george anthony and the duct tape. >> i told you in the beginning, nor are we suggesting that george anthony killed caylee. there is no evidence of that. there is no evidence of any murder in this case. that has been our position from the very beginning. we would never point the finger at someone that doesn't support any evidence. this was an accident that snowballed out of control. whatever happened afterrds has nothing to do with the crimes charged. absolutely nothing to do with that. mr. anthony had a is on numerous occasions had the opportunity to come up here and tell the truth about these items but given

every single opportunity he lies. he has been impeached by the prosecutioduring the deposition. he was impeached here. he played games with the photograph. he danced around the truth and just refused to be up front and honest. one thing you can see in george anthony and that is that this man doesn't have an ounce of paternal instinct in him. not an ounce. when he got up here on numerous occasions and almost with a bit of joy testified against his very own daughter. i don't know a father in the world who wouldn't fall on a sword for his child, who wouldn't attempt to try and protect her from the jaws of death but not george anthony.

even cindy anthony tried and you saw that. lee anthony had times was resistant, but you didn't see an ounce of that from george. george cares about george and no one else. those are not the actions of a father. throughout the course of this trial, as he testified, he didn't ago like a father. reaction where he smiled, he thought it was funny to spar with me. there were times when he broke down and did display his affection. i submit to you, his displays of affection are not very genuine. we had this young lady come and tell you about his displays of affection. he told you that she had a brain

tumor and he was going there to consoler. there -- console her. >> there is nothing involved. >> she didn't have a tumor. three years later, she is still alive. she came here and testified. she didn't have a tumor. he went there to her apartment at night and during the day when he was claiming to be working to console her? he has got a woman at home that needed consoling. cindy anthony needed consoling. he wasn't home consoling her. he was consoling her. state tried to impeach her about you sold your story, yes, she did. we brought that out from the very beginning. there is one thing that is certain that she kept their relationship private until the police came knocking on her

door. until it was already out there and made public. that is when she ended up selling her story, not before. she didn't expose george anthony i had a relationship with him. by his own admission he knew there was a guard at that gate that saw his coming and going. he was a high profile person, couldn't get around. couldn't deny ever being in her apartment because she would have been the next person on that stand. he was going to her apartment to console her for some fantasy brain tumor that didn't exist. came up here and he lied to you. i'm just being a nice guy. george cares about george, not about his wife, not about his daughter, not about his family, about himself. that is what this is all about.

when you read it, it's all about himself, it's a self-servicing, self-preservation document. remember this is january, his relationship with his mistress is now over. cops are coming around a little too soon with search warrants. they collect that gas can again after returning it. the gas can with the duct tape which he can't seem to tell the truth about. they are coming around and they are asking questions had they are getting his fingerprints. the waults walls are getting closer and closer to george anthony, what does he do? he gets a six pack with beer with some blood pressure medications and claims to commit suicide.

this whole thing, i'm sorry, i'm this, i'm that. that is all george is about, himself. he had a gun. the only reason he got a gun was to get casey back in jail knowing full well there could be not any firearms in the house. this is an ex-police officer, this is someone who knows better. who the person from listen, these are the rules. second they are broken, she goes back to jail. he didn't care because george cares about george. he really wanted to kill himself he certainly could have. it would have taken a lot more than a six pack of beer and blood pressure medication. this is a self-servicing document, it's more of george anthony's lies and more of george perfecting george. call in the police on the gas

cans on june 24th, is george protecting george and george throwing casey under the bus. you saw the text message that he sent. he sent, his holloway, i need you in my life. him and cindy, he doesn't write cindy, cindy is not going to her apartment at night. cindy never went to her apartment. cindy wasn't consoling her for her brain tumor, but he was. before any of this, then he goes up denying saying it was an accident that snowballed out of control. he is telling her she is dead

and still showing another face to the media and the public and he is going around doing all kinds of media appearances. within 48 hours of his so-called suicide, he is in front of the cameras again. if there is one thing you learned about this family, and it's dysfunction is they don't mind putting on another face. lies are what pumps what lives within this family. i told you that in the very beginning, she was raised that way, raised to lie. is it a surprise that she has this fantasy world? is it a surprise that she has all these imaginary friends? is it a surprise she turned out this way knowing the lies and actually seeing them firsthand?

mind you, unfortunately they kept coming up on the stand again and again. you got see them on different days, you have to hear them change their stories and do different things, but the fact of the matter is, they raise their hand, swore to you, i will tell the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth. and they lie. so now as their own daughter stands trial for her life you are supposed to rely on that. you are supposed to believe in that. these are only the lies of her own covers. what about all the other things that could have been investigated and never were. how is it they didn't get his cellphone activity during that time? how is it that they can't tell us the coming and goings of that?

we have the most advanced technology available to us. we don't use it and you don't go digging up things you don't want to find, you are not going to find them. you are not going to have the information you need to render a just verdict. that is not justice. that is not justice, especially when you are pouring everything you can directed at only one person and you are not looking at the entire situation. no, it shouldn't have turned out this way, they should have done more, they should have opened that, shouldn't have been walking around with blinders. shouldn't have been trying to put square pegs in round holes. if they just kept an open mind they would have seen what was going on here. they would have seen that the truth wasn't exactly the truth and that there was more to the

lies. you heard dominic -- hoover take the stand. you may recall both of these were private investigators working for the anthonys. you heard something and you saw a video of where ty went searching in november. you may recall dominic casey may be the one that provided comical relief throughout this trial, a strange man, to say the least and his partner jim hoover when

they went out and searched off of suburban drive. they not only searched but videotaped. for the very firstime they were looking for a dead caylee. mr. casey says, well, it was a psychic that sent me out there. a psychic that was introduced to him by cindy anthony. you heard cindy anthony get up there and deny ever sending him to the woods. you heard george anthony, once i saw that video, he never went and asked dominic casey anything about it. he never said, hey, what were you doing out there where the remains were found? this is a private investigator who is looking for him and his wife and he never asked him.

you may recall we showed you the e-mail, dominic casey. this is jim hoover. you may recall this is the location off of suburban drive in the abandoned house where they were. i asked them, do you know orlando is 101 square miles. out of 101 square miles of or landfill oh, this is the spot that they searched. it's circled. you are remember they circled this item right here at to where caylee was found. that is where they searched. you heard one of of them say that cindy said she had her people walk that area. remember you took the stand and cindy got up and denied it. so cindy denied it and they

impeached her. why is she lying? then you heard lee anthony impeach his mother 30 seconds after she left the stand. in fact, it angered lee so much that he stopped taking time off from work because they were looking for a live caylee originally and now all of a sudden they are looking for a dead caylee. you heard him. he said i had enough. we got into an argument over it. i confronted her. this is a young man talking about his mother, impeaching her 30 seconds after she ghotd off the stand. they knew where she was. casey was in jail. they knew where she was and they were out there searching. what do you think the odds or

they would search at the same exact spot where she would be found a month later? what are the odds in havinghat video? can you even count that high? how odd is that, is that a coincidence? is this a coincidence, too? is this a coincidence,, too? add them all together, you've got something very suspicious going on. very suspicious and it has absolutely nothing to do with casey. where is the truth in all of this? where? it's not in the forensics. where? it's not on their testimony. these are the state's star

witnesses. one of them may have to impeach at the end of the trial and remember caylee was found with no socks or shoes -- let's back up i forgot when i was talking w about the pool. that is consistent with someone that is at home. she was at home when she died. she didn't have any socks or shoes on, they didn't recover any shoes. you remember welch after two questions, did you find any socks, did you find any shoes? she was wearing shorts that the fit are anymore. hadn't been worn in over six months.

she had pull-ups on and hadn't worn them, quote, in a long time. things are just not adding up here. things just don't make sense. it is so difficult for you to find the truth, if it is difficult for you to fin the truth, then this case is not proven. there is reasonable doubt and remember what i told you about with this case at the very beginning, reasoble doubt lives here. it's right here. it's with these individuals. it's with those individuals. it's everywhere. you can't trust this evidence. you can't.

when the state rests his case, we have no burden and could have closed up shop but you didn't have enough information. you didn't hear from carey from the f.b.i. madeline montgomery who tested the hair and found absolutely no drug, found all the club drugs and tested for all the club drugs they could find and found none. she said it was very sensitive measuring tool. the state wants you to talk about meaningless. it wouldn't be meaningless if they found drugs but it's only meaningless when they don't find it. heather the dna analyst. the trunk, the car that tested the other items throughout the case. marcus white, steven shaw, the

soil analyst who went and got every single pair of her shoes and didn't find any soil from the scene in her closet. also those collected. micha sigma who did the air samples. karen lowe, michael rickenbacher and laurie godison, ten different people, ten different state experts we had to call. so you can get all of the evidence so you could see that evidence either inculpates them or exculpates them. but the reason they continue prove this case is because it wasn't true.

look at all these -- look at all these tests that they ran. no fingerprints on the duct tape either at the scene or even on the gas can. no financinger prints on the duct tape at the scene. no fingerprints on the laundry bag. no dna on the duct tape. it was wrapped around her face, suffocated her to death as the state claimed. why isn't there dna? degradation, that is not enough. you heard the doctor testify about that. you her heather stuber testify about that.

they wouldn't have testified if it continue be on there. f.b.i. searche for this and it came back negative and it has another partial profile it on, one that contaminate it and the other on the sticky side. that was the 17 marker that excludes casey. more importantly excludes caylee. if caylee had decompose had all over that duct tape, there would have been cell material on there. there would have been some dna. we solve cold cases every day 20 to 30 years later with dna evidence. six months? we can't find dna on some duct tape? it's one of the best ways to get this type of evidence, not only dna but also fingerprints. you didn't have that.

no dna on the paper towel. no dna in the trunk. no blood in the trunk. no sticker on the duct tape at the scene. no chloroform on the car seat. no chloroform on the steering well. no chloroform in the bones -- remember they searched, they did all kinds of examinations, from the bone marrow to the saline wash and from her hair, nothing to match their case. nothing to add to their theories to their hope -- remember what they called it -- they only hoped. their air tests, chloroform, no qualitative analysis, the toxicology exam, all these drugs negative, negative, negative, negative.

no prescription drugs found, no hair decomposition out of the other hundreds of theirs they checked. the soil examination, all of this stuff, the shovel, everything came back negative. the greatest crime lab in our country, all this came back negative. as i told you, opening statements, she is dumb enough to leave her child off the side of the road just 19 feet but she is smart enough to outwit the greatest crime lab in the country. that doesn't sound right. doesn't make sense. it goes on and on. no tissue on the duct tape. nothing, no maggots in the trunk outside the very few that fell out of a bag. everything else was in the bag. no blow flies in the trunk

except that one leg but remember there were were 75 in the bag. how did they get in there? 75 early colonizers in the bag but not one of them made it into the trunk and it was in the trash bag. remember that paper towel had marijuana. remember? the fat si acid that was adisofere had marijuana on also. that is nonsense. how ridiculous can you get. no discoloration inside the skull. remember the doctor, you would be hard pressed. you were very fortunate to have someone as qualified as he was to come here and testify before

you, to be able to tell you about this issue and how if someone dies of such oh calls you would have that. no trauma, no fractures. the list goes on and on. no prior injury, nothing. no cause of death. it adds up to only one thing. if you look at all the evidence here, it only adds up to one thing and that is she died by an accident. this was an accident that snowballed out of control. now, again, the defense has no burden here. the defense didn't have to call these people.

in the presentation of the evidence you got from the prosecution included this person this person, this person, this person, this person and this person. i would be willing to bet that most of you don't en remember any of them. they failed to call this person. do you even remember what these people talked about? the man w finds the body is never called by prosecution. >> i object, violation as to the order. >> sustained, krornt continue

>> this is the defense attorney, jose baez. >> he packed up her remains and took them home. but there is one thing that is uncontroverted. he knew where she was. and had control of that. for at least four months. you look -- this is what i showed you at the beginning of this trial and this is what came out. at approximately 1:00 o'clock p.m. he is there with his co-workers on august 11. he tells his friends i think i

see a skull here. a skull. but they get distracted by the snake. forget the snake. they forget the skull and concentrate on the snake. and he never says a word to his co-workers, ever, again. he goes home that night. that afternoon. and calls 9-1-1. at 4ton 28 in the afternoon. and he tells them, i see something round and white. he's talking, he's describing a skull. they don't find anything, nothing happens. so he calls again on 8/12. and gives a more comprehensive description. you have the 9-1-1 call. you can hear them. you heard them. he starts giving more of a description. and he says something very interesting, he says there was a

tree there that had a fallen tree that looks like somebody cut it. if he is 30' or 40' away how would he know so much detail, that someone tried to cut the tree and he says this: there was a white board hanging over it. there was no white board recovered. this is a marker where he may have hid her remains under the tree. you may recall the workers testifying about when they were there. how heavy is the tree? too heavy for someone who weighs 105 pounds soaking wet? not so heave for a man who wees about 250, about 6' 1"or 6' 2".

the remains were hidden. we saw how close the 19' from here to the witness stand by the side of the road for six months. there is a white board there that no one finds or photographs on december 11th. what happened to the white board? who moved it. not casey she has en in jail. this is august she is already in jail. and the short time she was on bond she was under house arrest and the media, ten media trucks parked outside her house. somebody moved that white board. somebody moved that tree. at the very least you must reject what was found there. the conditions of which it was found. because as all crime scene people testify you never get a

second chance at a crime scene. you never get a second chance. you want to get reliable information from a scene it cannot be contaminated or staged. it is pointless. because whatever you see you must reject. on the 13th a police officer meets him there. the deputy comes out to meet roy kronk to show him where the bag of bonesre. they didn't find it. all kronk could say, well, he wasn't very thorough. well, it is 19' away from the street. and, remember, there was about

6.5' of grass. it was this close. how can you not tell the officer it's there, right there. as the prosecution pointed out why not grab the bag and go down the block and say news media, here it is, i found her, give me the reward. i've got a story for you. why let the rude officer treat you that way? why not point it out? something is wrong here. something very shady. and $255,000 is the motivation for someone. he admitted it. i asked about the reward. i said i won the lottery.

he said all of those things and he called his son in november. you heard his son say "my dad told me he found caylee." he had no reason to come here and lie to you. and testify against his father. he wanted to have a relationship with his father. they were estranged and they were just starting to build that. he completely impeached his father's testimony. and not only does he impeach it mr. kronk impeached himself. he admitted to you on december 11th when he happens to be urinating for the second time four months later he finds her

remains. he tells the police in two different statements "i lifted the bag up about 4' off the ground and a skull dropped out." well, that's not consistent with what the police found. they went back to him on the 17th and he changed his story. you heard him say it. two different statements. what's glaring and what's missing here is on the 11th when they asked, so, do you have anything else important to add he doesn't say "yes, i called you four times four months ago." he doesn't say anything. he keeps that quiet. it is not until they go back and he knows they have the 9-1-1 call.

they havehe previous crime line tips. my story's different. i better play ball. this didn't drop out or roll out of the bag. it was there. changing his complete story. how can you trust it. how can you trust anything at that scene if it's staged. an of it. we know her skull wasot as they found it. we from kronk lying about the skull rolling out. and, remember, in august he is doing all the 9-1-1 scales and talking about a skull. the skull is outside of the bag. but, yet, on december 11th, it drops out of the bag.

who put the skull back in the bag? somebody had to. it's in his own sworn statement. and it's not until he changes it that he admitted to that but those sames are etched in time. there's nothing that can be done. you know now that he changed his story and you also know now that those remains were hidden, those remains were in a bag. this man is lying. how can you rely on that evidence? you cannot trust this evidence. you can't trust this scene with all of this going on. you just can't. again, reasonable doubt is breathing and living in this case. and it is living right to the end as to when they find it.

if not for the defense finding, his kim jong-un, -- his own son you would not have had that testimony. you would not have had any of this knowledge when making a decision to take someone's life. or making the decision to convict someone of murder. aggravated manslaughter. aggravated child abuse. you would not have any of this information. information that you can see is critical, clearly critical.

we keep getting back to the one central station: that is, how she died. and right now as you it is here you must have more answers, more questions than answers. and the judge will instruct you on what the law is and how it must be proven. there's no way in looking at all of the circumstances that you can say, that this case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. there's just in way. and there are various reasons why this is such. it began with part of the coverup and concluded with part of the information and the investigation as to where it was

carried out. to find her guilty of any single charge, any single one of them, you have to have an abiding conviction of guilt. that's what you have to have inside of you. you have to know that thi case was proven, you have to know the facts were proven. and you don't have that. and however tragic this case is you cannot continue it. you are the ultimate deciders of what the facts are. mr. mason will show you the different charges and explain to you how the law will be allied in this case and how we suggest you look at it and how the judge will instruct you on it. i thank you all collectively and individually for all of the attention you have given us and the prosecution and how you have been able to keep an open mind

despite every reason not to. it has not been easy and there have been times when emotions have gotten high. but you're here to fulfill an oath. you have labored tremendously over this journey and we will ask you to render a verdict of in the guilty on these charges because they simply are not proven. and they're simply not true. just look at what they have and what they don't have, all the snap teas forensics in the world don't make it so. all of the lies that you had to swim through don't get you any closer to the truth.

mistakes cannot be any higher in this case and we ask you use the law as your guide. thank you. judge: we will take a 10-minute stretch break before mr. mason starts. >> the jury in orlando, florida, listening to the closing arguments for the last couple of hours of the chief defense attorney baez. at one point in time he said "this case is living and breathing reasonable doubt." he said "they were never able to present a cause of death. that equals reasonable death, a

myriad of questions equals equal doubt. you may not like my client because she is a liar but that doesn't mean she a murderer and accused the chief prosecution witness of being a liar over and over and over and over again. and he called the forensics in this case nothing but a fantasy. and now fox legal analyst. how did he go? >> better in argument than he did during portions of the proceedings during the trial. he did a nice job of hitting the point that reasonable doubt lives and breatheses. to say to the jury, look, disregard the logical conclusion and presentation of the circumstantial evidence, pull them away from that, and talk about fantasy forensic and the fact that the body and the crime scene have potentially been manipulated and if it was not the existing crime scene how can you trust the forensics and nail

it all to casey anthony when there are other individuals that could have come in contact with the body. overall the facts in evidence in this case might be able to deter the jury from the first-degree because of the doubt about the cause of death. we still dent know as we it is here how she died. >> although the prosecution said the murder weapon here was the duct tape and he tried to tie the duct tape to the accused and, yet, the defense countered by saying wait a minute the only person you and tie this duct tape to is not the accused but the father. >>guest: that was a great move because the prosecution made a mistake from the beginning trying to say this is the exact way she died. the duct tape is what george anthony purchased so if you are trying to connect it directly to casey you are going to have a problem there in terms of the

chain saying, wait, the dad got it so how can we be certain. >> and he said the question, the central question in this case is how did sky lee dye and he said they have not answered that and we have some sound from baez where he referenced that. >> there are no mysteries to solve here. there should be no mystery before you right now. if you have questions then it was not proven and that's as simple as it gets because that is exactly what is done. >> there you have it. he is saying, question, any question at all creates reasonable doubt but that is actually a legal fallacy, isn't it? >> it is. sometimes the against attorneys try to say that reasonable doubt would be if you don't have 100 percent certainty.

the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, you might have some kind of doubt but not complete certainty as to what happened. that is not enough to say the case hasn't been proved sufficiently with evidence by the prosecution. >> on balance, is there enough here beyond a reasonable doubt to believe the accused committed a crime. there will always be questions in every case. you never know anything. >>guest: do you have at the end of the day an abiding conviction that this happened, that casey anthony, took the life of her little daughter, caylee, and as we no premeditation, deliberation can happen in an instant and that is why the prosecutor brought in the shovel, and, in fact, the defense made a mistake trying to say with certainty that, in fact, she had accidentally drowned. the best piece of evidence for the prosecution is 31 days of silence from casey anthony not

saying anything. >>guest: they also called into question casey anthony herself and baez said, you may not like her but that doesn't mean she did it. we have sound on that point. >> if you hate her, you think she is a lying no good slut you will look at tis evidence in a different light, you will start to, wait a minute, maybe i am seeing something that is not there and start to actually discriminate against her rather than give her the standard this is afforded to each and every citizen in our country. and that is that the state, the government come in here and prove their case beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt but you can get away with that if we can get a jury to hate her. >> we will show you more when we come back of the closing arguments of both the prosecution and the defense. we're in a break right now. it is unclear whether closing arguments will continue until

the very end. the defense is going to be speaking next and then the prosecution rebudgets so stick prosecution rebudgets so stick with it more live coverage.24. he's low fat, too, and has 5 grams of sugars. i'll believe it when i--- [ both ] oooooh... what's shakin'? [ female announcer ] as you get older, protein is an important part of staying active and strong. new ensure high protein... fifty percent of your daily value of protein. low fat and five grams of sugars. see? he's a good egg. [ major nutrition ] new ensure hh protein. ensure! nutrition in charge! ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] and just like that, it's here. a new chance for all of us: people, companies, communities

to face the challenges yesterday left behind and the ones tomorrow will bring. prudential. bring your challenges. and the ones tomorrow will bring. diabetes testing? it's all the same. nothing changes. then try this. freestyle lite® blood glucose test strip. sure, but it's not gonna-- [beep] wow. yep, that's the patented freestyle zipwik™ design. did it just-- [both] target the blood? yeah, drew it right in. the test starts fast. you need just a third the blood of one touch.® that is different.

so freestyle lite test strips make testing... easy? easy. great. call or click-- we'll send you strips and a meter, free. free is good. freestyle lite test strips. call or click today.

>> welcome back to our continuing live coverage of the casey anthony murder trial with closing arguments. we heard from one prosecutor, and one defense attorney and are in a 10-minute break. and now to judge alex. how did baez do? >>guest: pretty good. he did better in the closing arts than during the course of the evidence part of the case. this is what he should have con, he never should have sold that

bill the goods he could not deliver about a drowning defense involving her father. he should have stuck with a vague defense. attack the reasonable doubt issues. he is making the arguments a lot of defense lawyers make which is not true. confusion. not having answers to question is not reasonable doubt. reasonable doubt focuses on the elements of the charge. not reasonable doubt as to why or where, but you care about the elements of the crime, is she dead? that is established. was they killed through the criminal act of another? that is an element. they can argue over that but the evidence supports a killing through criminal act versus a drown asking they should, the prosecution, should pound home the fact that although as promised there is no evidence of drowning and, of course, was casey the one who killed caylee? that is where he go to her behavior and to the decompositional smell in the car

and where they go to all of the things that point to casey. the rest of the question, you can have all kinds of doubt, the government has no obligation to answer those and in most cases they can't because they can't go back in time and learn everything. >> i am nodding because what he says is right. i would tell a jury, the most powerful weapon in court as you deliberate is common sense. when you lay your head down on your pillow, do you believe the defendant is guilty of murder? that is what i would say. we cannot tell you how. we did not have a camera rolling but think what makes sense. think of the power of the circumstantial evidence. you know she's responsible for the death of her young child. >> the lawyers say don't leave your common sense at the door or at home. bring it with you into the jury deliberation. >> we are back now live inside the courtroom. let's listen. >> let's return the jury.

we have a moment while they bring in the jury. judge alex, will they go beyond the 6:00? what do you think? >>guest: if i were the judge i would ask them and i would like to complete the closing arguments today if they are up for it and maybe give them another break before the rebuttal side. and try to get all of the closing done, and the only thing left to do is instruct the jury. but in many cases i tell the jury we will go as long as you want. if you want to go into the instructions and start deliberations i don't care if we stay until 1:00 o'clock if it is oh sky with you. the lawyers we don't care, when the jury deliberates they and relax or cool their jets but i want to know if the jury wants to keep going, and if they do, i would. >> judge, the -- well, everyone

is sitting down, now. judge: mr. mason. >> i know you would like to spend another ten or 12 hours listening to lawyers i and see it in your face but unfortunately you are not going to get to do that at least from me but we will spend a few minutes. i we begin thinking about where we are and where we came from since may the 9th in clearwater. and now we are about to put on your shoulders the most solemn responsibility that you individually or all of you have ever had to face.

all i can say, is you take pride in what you do like we do, hopefully. i begin my comments, just a little bit of some philosophy. a very dear friend of mine named milton, an author, and, in fact, a judge, advised me of this parable. history records that on may 19, 1790 the skies over hartford, connecticut, towned from blue and sunny and black and stormy with such speed the people believed the end of the world was at hand. the cut -- connecticut house of representatives was in session and members dropped to their knees in prayer as others asked for adjournment. the speaker rose to his feet and restore order with these words:

the day of judgment is either approaching or it is not. if it is not, there is no cause for adjournment. if it is coming, i choose to be found doing my duty. i wish, therefore, that candles be brought. today is judgment day in the united states and tomorrow will be judgment day for the constitution and every day an american stands trial for his lib city before his jury every day when an men is arrested or home or property searched every day in which a voice is raised in speech or song and every day a vote is cast or counted and each day a newspaper is printed or read every day when a lawyer is asked to against an unpopular man or an unpopular cause is

judgment day for the united states constitution. we and carry -- we can cowl before the storm or light candles. let us light candles on the day of the freedom of the country and the beginning of constitutional government there are things you will here that are extremely important. that is, the constitutional rights and constitutional protections that afor the freedom to each of us in this room. and interpreted with special rules for casey anthony. now, when my colleagues and the state attorneys, known them a long time, either together or divided up some fashion, they will stand and present arguments

to you and when they're done i guess probably tomorrow morning judge perry will then read to you the instructions of law that you are required by your oath and by the law to follow. i can tell you now there are going to be some questions asked about those because in truth and fairness we have not been able to get them to finalize what they will be but we are working hard. you will have to memorize them. you will be given 12 sets of these typewritten instructions so you can read them, discuss them, argue about them, try to understand what they mean. i know you will be able to

because despite how long it has been i remember all the process of the jury selection and i believe you all have cumulative and individual abilities to analyze and resolve your questions regarding the instructions. so i will tell you what some of them are and what will govern what will happen in this case. there is a discussion entitled plea of not guilty, reasonable doubt and burden of proof. i do not intend to belabor that. but there are things that control the major lighting of scandals that we're going to do in this case. that is, casey anthony is not required to present evidence or

prove anything. you may remember that concept was discussed with you in clearwater. not just by the lawyers asking questions. but judge perry looked to the side to each one of you and discussed that with you and everyone understood and agreed "i accept that." each of you accepted a constitutional principle which is a cornerstone of our freedom. i'll say that again: the defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything. and you must remember that concept with every issue you discuss when you are in the jury room. you can get called up and

emotional rhetoric. you can get caught up in conflicting positions amongst you. but no matter what it is, the defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything. said another way, you must carry with you throughout the discussion, the burden of proving every required element in this lawsuit rests with my colleagues from the state attorney's office. and they don't shy away from it. they have accepted that. that's their responsibility. never forget no matter what the issue is they have all of the burden and there is none over here because that is what separates our constitutional

government and freedom. it is your duty to absolutely ensure those rules are respected and honored through every stage of your discussions. every element of the offenses are required to be proven beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. every reasonable doubt. and if the state of florida fails in that burden of proof as to any element of the offenses then you are required, like it or not, emotional or not, it is

your sell emsworn duty, you are required to find the defendant in the case to be not guilty for every charge in this case. only if it can be said in your intellectual honesty, that the state has proven the elements beyond a reasonable doubt may you find the defendant guilty. so with every issue raised, burden, no burden, reasonable doubt, that will help you get through it. the court will tell you that it is your job to weigh the evidence. not the sparring between the lawyers.

and whatever else, you, the jury, are the ones who weigh the evidence and decide what evidence is reliable, that evidence you find skeptical, what evidence you don't trust. it is out of the lawyers' hands. this is for you to decide. and the court is going to give you some guidance. we don't look at someone and say, well i look year looks, or that guy is too old, or he can't hear or whatever the issues are. you look to the rules to guide you on the evidence. such as, did the witness seem to have an opportunity to see and know things about which the witness testified?

did the witness seem to have an accurate memory? was the witness honest and straightforward? oh, my, we have seen a lot of issues about that in the last six weeks, perhaps. did the witness have some interest in how the case should be decided, like being able to make some money? or something like that? did the witness' testimony agree with other testimony and evidence in the case? did the witness at some other time make a statement in consistent with the testimony he or she gave in court? that is what you heard during

times of objections and during arguments, which is impeachment, when you cash someone changing their story from what they said before, under oath, in a deposition. you have the right to believe or disbelieve all or any part of the evidence of any testimony of any witness 100 percent of the people sitting in that chair you have a right to believe all or none. that's what a jury is about. otherwise we would use computer with all the machines going around, i don't, maybe i will live long enough to see we won't have human juries but for now

you get to weigh and judge the credibility of every single witness. the court will give you an instruction about expert witnesses. remember august the people we talked about and the judge would declare they were an expert at this or an expert in that. you can consider that. however, you also are going to be told that like other witnesses you may believe or disbelieve all or any part of an expert's testimony. just because they may have met criteria threshhold to be anointed bit judge as an expert,

that you have to buy it. you may or may not. that is part of being on the jury. thinking back to your oath, and instructions from judge perry in clearwater now we will talk about the elephant in the room. and i know what it is and you know what it is. my client, casey marie anthony, with the advice of counsel, made her decision to not testify in this case. i didn't try that many cases to know that is still on your mind but you swore an oath to rise above bias and prejudice and media impact and the judge will

tell you as follows: the constitution requires the state prove their accusations against the defendant. it is not necessarily for the defendant to prove anything or disprove anything or prove her innocence. it is up to the state to prove her guilt by evidence. the defendant exercised a fundamental right by choosing not to be a witness in this case. you must not view this as admission or guilt or be influenced in anyway by her decision. again, you must not view this as an admission of guilt or be influenced in any way by her decision. the promise you made and that is a promise that must be kept if we are liging candles for our constitutional rights of freedom. no jury should be concerned that

a defendant did or did not take a witness stand to give testimony in this case. burden of proof? no burden beyond a reasonable doubt and don't care think you can consider the factor that she did not testify. as fundamental a right as we have born in the constitution, the history of our country since we have had the constitution, and now i will discuss a subject that you will have to consider. counts, you may remember counts

4, 5, 6, and 7, and the reading of the indictment, allege that casey marie anthony made false statements to yuri and she made false statements to him different times and places. and the court is going to tell you that the instruction of the law is you must determine from the evidence the defendant's statement was knowingly and voluntarilily and freely made. in making this determination, you should consider the total circumstances including but not limited to whether, when the

defendant made the statement, she had been threatened in order to get her to make it, and whether anyone had promised her anything in order to get her to make it. if you conclude the statement was not freely made, and voluntarily made, you should disregard it. i call your attention to some of the evidence on this you may remember a reporting made where she was questioned by three detectives in a small room that was described as a 6' by 8' world and there were even pictures and you remember, if you will, hearing the detectives yelling at her. two, three at a time like a tv show, not allowing her to answer. berateing.

arguing. so, you may also remember that the initial part of it, interesting enough there was a dispute along the law enforcement officers. you have a sergeant say when she was not handcuffed she wasn't arrested and young officer comes in and says, yes, i did it, put her in the cage of the officer's officer and the prosecution, then, reported it and said she was free to go. so, the bottom line is, when you consider those things, those counts, consider whether or not the law has been met and she voluntarily made those statements and she was not under pressure and not being threatened and not in a small room with three detectives and made a statement like this, but

the law says if she was not freely and voluntarily making the statements you should disregard them and if the statements are again, sore all the counts. the initial charges in this case, of cose, are first-degree murder, which requires the government to prove some things that are obvious. are we arguing that this unfortunate child is not dead? of course in the. that has never been an issue, but it ison there, you may wonder why wi they do that? okay, the death was caused by the criminal act of casey marie

anthony. now, caused by her. well, what act? what act? you will read the instructions and the charge in the indictment that this was done by a premeditated killing or alternately you will consider if there was a felony murder underlying that and have fun reading the instructions on that, we're trying to make them as clear as they can and there are two theories. the main thing is what act?

what does premeditation mean? also, you will are given an instruction on dealing with the offense of felony murder by the first degree and that is, again, that caylee anthony is dead and the death occurred as a consequence of and while casey marie anthony was engaged in the commission of aggravated child abuse. not sure what day of the actual trial, butonly thing i am clear is sunday afternoon. where, what, how, why, and when is the evidence of aggravated child abuse? all the witnesses that took the stand didn't know anything about

casey marie anthony confirm that she was a loving, doting, devoted mother. she was a young girl, only 22 and the child was well fed. well nourished. well-taken care of. bright. had no evidence of prior trauma, no twisting the bones, no closed failures, nothing. or, the law says, that the death occurred as a consequence of and while casey marie anthony was attempting to commit aggravated child abuse. and casey marie anthony was the person that actually killed caylee marie anthony.

all the emotion and all the suspicion in oral doesn't prove it. the burden of proof, no burden beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. you will get an instruction hopefully that will help you understood what is meant by aggravated child abuse. one of the parts of that and added to it is a definition of "willfully." not unintentionally or accidentally, but "willfully."

willfully causing child abuse on caylee. i may not, indeed, have been able to hear everything. you may have noticed we both have on our tables special computer where he sends me what is being said so when can't hear it, i would it is there and try to read it. i never heard or read in this case any evidence of child abuse of any kind. i'm not done, it is not that easy. the instruction is going to tell

you that you may find a reasonable doubt based on the evidence or the lack of evidence. now, mr. baez went through a lot of things about what is or is not evidence. and for give me if i repeat some of those, but i had made a list of issues that i thought were not proven. of course you have the right to disagree with me or say "yes, that's right," and to think of others on your own which i know you will. so i will run through quickly to give you an idea what we are talking about on lack of evidence. this is a criminal case. no fingerprints on the duct tape anywhere or on the bags or on the bags of anything that were

searched and seized by warrant from the home. interestingly we learn that the gas can with the duct tape/no duct tape had been wiped clean. no prints. toxicology tests, from the forensic team doing the autopsy studies was charged with the duty of seeking to find chemical evidence of chloroform and several other drugs and poisons. zero. found zero. they talked about there being no

d.n.a. the case occurred in 2008, this is not new, the only profile of d.n.a. evidence as you heard a little while ago excluded, meaning it was not the defendant. d.n.a. evidence, as you heard, if you remember how much fun it was to listen to, is to try to say this d.n.a. evidence matches you, not you as a person, but that this is a physical probability. if there are these markers on the exhibits then you, the more there are, the higher the probability. the general rule if i remember correctly, where there are the

13 markers, then the probability of that person not being the match to that is like one in 14 quad-dri llons. that's 15 zeros. but if the d.a. has one marker, just one marker, that the subject does not have, that means it is excluded and cannot be. the f.b.i. concurs the profile excluded from that duct tape excluded casey marie anthony. and the child.

there was nod of decomposition at the scene. no bugs. whatever. and mr. baez pointed out no bugs in the trunk. only in the trash. the issue of chloroform was brought up. from the beginning. what a media baby this was. i must remind you about this evidence. dr. sigmond extracted two large bags of air from the trunk of the car at the same time, in the same way, at the same place. he took one to his laboratory. and sent one to another lab. the doctor's lab says major

compound was gasoline. and there was a small trace of chloroform which he also said is everywhere. everywhere. the opposing side, no, no, no, we had this shockingly high level. we don't know how much but it watts shockingly high. and mr. baez, the witness said, no, no, no, very low. search warrants at house three times. in common sense experience you know the police do not call up and say well be there at 6:45 so be read. they are issued where a legal process is ordered by the judge and the law enforcement officers go "surprise," and they searched the anthony residence and they searched it all.

they searched everything. they found in chloroform. in bottles of ingredients. no papers related to it. nothing. so then the issue, what does the chloroform mean? is the chloroform used to poison the child? or was it ultimately alleged found from the decomposition that was supposedly in the trunk of the car? this is no evidence of what it was, but it souped sexy for the media. the heart shape theticker, that deal, the laboratory analysts and the f.b.i. say she saw an image of part of a heart shape on the corner of duct tape, the language i recall, but she went to take a picture of it,